Posts by Panda

    Scouts do have a base def.
    And scouts on lvl 20 do have base off

    it's not a "base off" point but upgraded in armoury. other words if you kill 10 000 scouts with 0 upgrade you'll receive 0 defpoints (according to the supposed system)

    That's why Teuton's scouts are shit compared to the others

    lol try to consult kirilloid before writing

    This is obviously a bug.

    bug which is described in details in FAQ? yeah ...

    Club swingers are obviously not used for defense on purpose but they're a product of the same situation. Of the basic, most cost effective defense units there is a semblance of balance. With the Egyptians that balance is broken.

    If I provide someone with 10k slaves I don't deserve twice the defense points as the guy providing 5k praets.

    you will be surprised but I'm not arguing that system is unfair from this point of view, but at least it's clear for general player:
    "oh, I killed 1000 clubs and I got 1000 points! hooray!"
    "my friend and I killed 1000 clubs and got 200 and 800 points instead of 50% / 50%. hooray? but why? where can I see the clear system of points distribution? such a huge formula Oo :( " etc... something like this)

    I see it in this way.

    ps. off-topic with spears was only a little remark to show that everything is not so obvious as the TS see it. I don't know why his reaction was so expressive)

    Ok Panda, why don't you produce some simulations of you're own? Perhaps after that, maybe we can talk about reality? By that I mean the fact that you can't train as much Praet's in the same time as you can train Spears. So whilst your sim's might look nice when its 6k praets vs 6k spears, but in reality in the same time you make 6k Praets you have closer to 11k Spears. - Run those sims and get back to us, until then you just look silly trying to argue without any basis for your claims.

    actually this is Blaze who insisted on equal proportions of def units, not me:

    to compare slaves and praets in a 1v1 is totally incorrect.

    and sure I've made my own calculations, but my opponent is rude to continue any constructive dialogue with him.

    I don't know why you're trying to go for "realism" in a game that's hardly historically accurate..

    I was talking about game realities such as def types proportions in battle or amount of units used for comparing

    Just saw you posted something about
    Please feel free to input rams instead of catas too if you want. The effectiveness will not change. SPEARS STILL KILL THE MOST.
    According to the assumptions ive taken. Include 452 rams there instead of catas (dull)

    still wrong)
    your previous simulations are incorrect

    by the way, I'm not arguing the defpoint system is "unfair". it is so, but it can't be another because it would become too complicated for gamers and too heavy in analysing by game itself.

    so a little advice: just stop to defend with clubs and you will have no need to share defpoints in anfair way )

    As for you saying me not knowing how the battle system works.... (facepalm)
    Ive said twice ik thats not how it works (facepalm)

    ok, so please give real numbers of effectiveness of equal amount of :gau01::rom02::teu02: against 24 hours non-stop production of roman hummer. but it must be real numbers and not your blah blah blah

    Next thing you will say is 50k clubs and 50k prets

    if you use clubs in def you are noob, sorry. I prefer to compare real def situations without discussing of "сфеерического коня в вакууме".

    Off-points always belong to single player in single attack. What is there to argue?

    it's about such thing as killing scouts (or natars) for easy off points

    As for panda, i got no clue about half the things you said.

    oh, I understood your post pretty well, as well as the fact that you have no idea how the battle system works) you gave wrong info about effectiveness of different types of def units and the following your arguments were based on this wrong info. I tried to correct it by giving real numbers.
    to compare slaves and praets in a 1v1 is totally incorrect. I could explain why, but I won't) cause you seems to be a person who doesn't admit his mistakes

    For example if the incoming hammer is a roman one (heavy cavalry based), and the defense consists of phalanxs, spears, and prets equally (in terms of crop consumption) it is obvious that even though the consumption of all units is same since they're equal in numbers, the spearman have done the most damage to the hammer.

    Actually it isn't so obvious.
    - a roman hammer of "24 hours production" size = 334 :rom03: 303 :rom05: 139 :rom07: = 1660 crop consumption
    - 553 :teu02: 553 :gau01: 553 :rom02:
    you can't just sum cavdef and infadef and make conclusion. according to the battle formula defpoints are calculated in proportion to the appropriate types of the offensive units. so in this particular case the effectiveness of def units in the hummer "killing" is

    33,9% for :teu02: 31,8% for :gau01: 34,3% for :rom02:

    the calculations becomes even more complicated if take in consideration upgrade of units, ally bonus, hero bonus etc.
    meanwhile the system should be clear to user without making a great effort. nobody argues with the off-points system based on crop consumption too. so this consumption-based system is rather appropriate ( I doubt that you'll receive the same number of praets and slaves while defending from hummers, slave will be at least two times more, so their contribution in total defense will be doubled)

    And we already established that the Egyptian will settle significantly faster on average than non raiding-defenders of other tribes.

    nope again. you established it for yourself.
    you try to compare egiptians and another account ignoring tribe bonus of the second one at the begining as far as different tactics of development based on these tribe bonuses. you propose to compare egyptians on the field where their bonus will be more evident - simming.
    moreover you compare egyptians and gauls (having the weekest hero bonus for the start) but make conclusion about all tribes.
    so if you want to consider this particular case with two non raiding defenders it's you right, but this can not be applied to all cases, so your statement is totaly groundless.

    oh, the rest of your post with numbers... I can use kirriloid too, but this doesn't mean that I could get benifit from an egyptian account more than from romain for example

    to conclude this dispute about egyptians hero overpowering: double bonus ability is fine and there is no reason to cut it.

    If the person simming up the account uses gold, it makes no difference, other than spending a bit more gold than Romans. Oh and, more resources means you can build up buildings giving CP earlier than Romans.

    I believed were were talking about the situation without gold using, because it's another type of bonus - not pure tribe bonus.
    With gold you can by lots of stuff simplifying start.

    The CP bit is close to non-sense.

    on the contrary, it is of great importance - the lower the speed of server the deeper the lag in getting CP from resources production

    I.e. there are a ton of cumulative effects as a result of the res bonus.

    all this "you can you can you can" is only a theory. no real calculations or step by step analysis of egyptians' development
    the same story with waterworks - you saw "+100% of oasis bonus" and bacame sure that egyptians are overpowed. but try to calculate how much advantage really is in non-top capitals - about 15% only for 7cc + 100% for ex.

    So, don't need to affirm something only after 9 days of betta, having only theoretical reasoning.

    You gain 20 resources for each point, not 6. And if you are Egyptian, you get 40.

    ok, my mistake - I took wrong numbers of "each tipe" production instead of general production

    Please. Don't tell us "most Huns are lvl 5-7" when it's only 87 players in total who fit into that category. From 1737 in total. Or is 0,05% in your world a majority?

    ok , to clarify - among those who have already settled second villages. anyway, I don't understand why do you pay such attention to the heroes lvl becouse this info has no great significance for comparing)

    Show me ANY OTHER server in which defensive accounts have even close to that ratio when it comes to early settling.
    15 out of 26 accounts who settled first were defensive accounts, Egyptians!!

    don't you think it's weird to compare in a such way on the server with such statistic?) :

    And there are a lot of Egyptians which have less than 20 Offensive points (OPs) and even some with ZERO. So they did not raid, didn't do anything except building and they settled as fast as the fastest Huns.

    this one is especcialy nice: you determin deff or non-deff accounts by their OPs. it's really funny) what about push with recourses or help with heroes from support accounts? or do you get access to all of them to affirm that "they didn't anything exept building"? I don't think so)

    they settle DAYS earlier

    oh, it's said too CAPS ) the best guide approuved by hundred players for T4.4 x1 speed version allow to settle second village without raiding and editional help 172 hours after server's begining. It also gives a variation to get from somewhere 80 000 recourses (for 1 selebration) to reduce this time to 140 hours. First capitall was settled here 130-135 hours later. I can't see any "DAYS earlier" advantage.

    Your lvl 4 hero produces 400 or 800 (Egyptian) additional resources. That's 400 more.

    why 4 lvl hero?) 3 lvl and 7680 extra production per 24 hours. and you gain this lvl not immediately, but to the second or even third day. So you have 38400 extra profit by the seventh day. It's really good, but you miss another very important thing - culture points. You may have 3 settlers ready to be sent but have no anough coulture points. Romans are even better in this - with double building bonus they can get "passive" CPs quicker than eny other tribes.

    But I think I have proven by now that my instinct is far more trustworthy than other people's numbers

    nope) you just overvalue egyptians bonus without real proofs and correct statistics

    But why do you again compare (highly competitive) raiding accounts with (semi active) simmer accounts. You argument is that again the account who invests A LOT more time might come out on top.

    as I understand all this discussion about overpowering of egyptians hero bonus get its begining after this statement:

    /edit: And I nearly forgot it: They also have another huuuuge advantage. That their hero produces twice as many resources than the other heroes. That alone is such a significant advantage, because it allows you to get better capitals.(...)
    I mean there are people who register up to 10 multi accounts just to get a good capital. That should demonstrate how important that is and what kind of huge advantage it is if you can settle faster than your competitors.

    firstly you didn't compare only simmer accounts of different tribes. you just affirmed that double production bonus allows to get better capitals and even give an example of registering multiaccounts as one of tacticts for this)
    I'd like to remid that any simmer accout whatever tribe it is will loose this settling race to the accoutn with the additional support. it's even not the question for disscution. So if you want to compare simmer accounts you could) but don't speak about huuuuuuge advantage in getting better capitals in general. may be an egyptian deff account will be faster than deff gouls one and take a better capital. maybe 9cc + 100% or 15cc +75%. :)

    ps.: you are too sarcastic for person who puts his instinct above numbers)

    arguing without real numbers is just demagogy)
    what we have?
    + 6 resource production per point for Huns / + 12 resource production per point for egyptians
    huns heroes gained already mostly 5-7 lvl / egyptians heroes - 3-4 lvl
    to use duble bonus advantage all exp points of egyptians hero should be thrown in Resources, but in this case he can't up his exp by raiding oasises and by the third day he will be 3 lvl high only or 16 exp points or 192 resourses per hour (92 res more than hun on this lvl) or 2300 per 24 hours extra profit if comparing with huns.
    is it TOO much? not really. can the raiding hun get more? no doubs.
    in fact romans are even more competitive in geting culture points which are also important at the begining.

    so egyptians bonus is no way "far far far far" better than the other ones.